IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das). CRR 3179 of 2025 Mala Mondal Khan & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta. Ms. Sofia Nesar, Mr. Santanu Sett, Mr. Sarodindu Patra, For the State : Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh, Heard On : 30-09-2026 Judgment on : 30-09-2026 Uploaded On : 07-10-2026 Chaitali Chatterjee(Das), J.:- 1. This revisional application has been field for quashing of the entire proceeding in connection with Goaltore Police Station Case No.96 of 2022 dated 9.4.2022 under Sections 341/323/325/379/308/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Shorn of any unnecessary details the fact of the case is that the husband of petitioner no.1 was bed ridden for about 12 years for the remaining period in “Coma” and ultimately expired. She had to incur expenses towards prolong medical and physical treatment of her husband and her two sons, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are dependent upon petitioner no.1. 3. The tragic life of the petitioner no.1 was broadcasted in one episode of “Didi No.1” of “ZEE BANGLA” channel and after such broadcast, opposite party no.2 along with others contacted with her and intended to make a biopic over her life. Relying such representation, she intended to proceed with such proposal and accordingly, she arranged for finalisation for such production as it was portrayed by the opposite party and she was facing economic crisis. The petitioner no.1 used all her savings and requested the Opposite Party no.2, who appeared the completion of project and amount to return for her respective interest there upon. In this manner, she handed over an amount of Rs.38, 50,000/- in favour of the Opposite Party no.2. 4. Despite assurances given to the present petitioner by the opposite party no.2 she was induced to pay amount Rs.38,50,000/-, lastly, the petitioner no.1 found that the project has not even started after lapse of several years. Subsequently when public meeting was arranged showing amount taken by the opposite party no.2, he also agreed to repay the same. Even after such when the opposite party no.2 did not return the said money and threatened the present petitioner with the dire consequences, she had to lodge complaint before the Ghatal P.S. Case No.409 of 2021 dated 8.11.2021 under Sections 406/ 420/ 34 of the IPC against the respondent no.2 herein and he was arrested and released on bail. After releasing from bail, the Opposite Party no.2 started threatening the present petitioner no.1 to withdraw the aforesaid police case and on her denial she was abused with un-parliamentary languages. The Opposite Party no.2 also intended to malign her character and also threatened the petitioner in the false case. 5. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 lodged this instant complaint before the Goaltore P.S. Case No.96 of the 2022 dated 9.4.2022 under Sections 341/323/325/379/308/354/34 of the IPC against the petitioners. The said case was initiated on the basis of an application filed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by opposite party no.2 alleging an incident occurred on 20.2.2022 after a considerable delay, without complying with the mandatory provision under section 154(1)&(3) CrPC . The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind mechanically directed the concerned Police Station to initiate the FIR. The present petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail and was favoured with such order. Subsequent thereto, the opposite party no.2 again lodged a complaint before the Ghatal P.S. being case No.454 of 2022 under Sections 341/ 323/ 379/ 354/ 506/ 34 of the IPC now pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner and her two sons. Assailing the same CRR 3386/2023 has been filed .This revisional application has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid said proceeding arising out of the complaint lodged through 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that the subsequent complaints are nothing but counterblast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no.2, who has himself appropriated huge amount of more than Rs.38,00,000/- with false assurance. More so, in connection with the proceeding lodged by the present petitioner against the opposite party no.2, the charge-sheet has been submitted on conclusion of the investigation and the Learned Court has framed the charge and witness action to be started. It is, therefore, the specific contention of the Learned Advocate that the present petitioner no.1 being the widow of Md. Ali Khan throughout suffered physically and mentally and the same broadcasted in the Television channel and this entire allegation levelled against her has caused further prejudice. Not only that she has been implicated with false allegation maliciously to wreak vengeance which are apparently found not based on any cogent materials and lodged against by the petitioner no1 only to save himself from the complaint lodged by her . 7. On behalf of the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, raises objection and submits that conduct of the present petitioners are very much evident from the allegation levelled against them by the present opposite party no.2, who compelled to lodge subsequent complaints in respect of the incident happened on separate dates. The Investigating Agency found sufficient materials and after that submitted charge-sheet and therefore, this instant revisional application should not be entertained, otherwise it would be a gross abuse of the process of law. 8. On behalf of the Prosecution, the objection raises and submits that after conclusion of the investigation the charge sheet has been submitted which prima facie establishes the allegations, levelled against the petitioner and in order to test the veracity of the same, the petitioners must face the trial. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the revisional application. 9. Heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. The inimical relationship between the parties is very much evident from the available materials on records. It is also a fact that the first complaint was lodged by the present petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no.2 and in that case the chargesheet has been submitted and charge is framed. No such submission has come forward on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that such chargesheet was ever challenged or the order framing charge has been assailed before any forum. The petitioners have come before this court for quashing of the entire proceeding . 10. In this proceeding the allegations made against the present petitioner no.1 and against one of her son. The complaint has been lodged under Section 156 (3) in respect of incident took place on February 21, 2020 filed on March 22, 2022. The allegation levelled against the present petitioners being the son and mother of physical assault upon the complainant as well as of stealing an amount of Rs.6,000/- and one gold chain. It is mentioned in that complaint that it was intimated to I.C. Goaltore P.S. through a letter however no step was taken and subsequently intimated to the Superintendent of Police, Paschim Medinapore and since no action was taken, the complaint had to be lodged under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. On perusal of the said complaint it is apparent that no documents were annexed along with written complaint in order or substantiate the contention of the petitioner regarding such delay in filing of the complaint where he alleged of being threatened with knife and also took away Rs 6000/- and a gold chain weighing 15 bhory . 12. In terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding judicial the mind of the Learned Magistrate while directing to order investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, the reason should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. In the instant case it is evident that the no such view was expressed by the Learned Magistrate .It was held in the case of Priyanka Srivastabha vs State of U.P 2015 (6) SCC 287 that: “We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).” 13. Therefore in the instant case despite the fact that no document regarding compliance of section 154(1) and 156(3) CrPC were annexed or any specific details given as to when such intimation was given such complaint was entertained . However, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the concerned P.S., who started enquiry after completion of investigation, which has culminated into filing of charge-sheet under Section 341/323/379/308/354B/34 of the IPC against both accused persons .No injury report was seized. On perusal of the record also it transpires that the wife of the complainant has recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Primarily, considered the materials collected during investigation, certain incriminating materials are found so far as the allegation of Sections 341/323/325/354B/379 but, there is no iota of materials to consider that any such allegation at all levelled to attract Section 308 against the present petitioner. 14. In the decision of Sharif Ahmed Vs. The State of Utter Pradesh 2024 INSC 363 it is specifically directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the investigating officer must clear and complete entries in the charge sheet, so that the Court can clearly understand the crime, which has been committed and by which the accused and the material evidence available on the file. Statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses and the role played by the accused separately to be clearly mentioned in the charge sheet for each of the accused person. Unfortunately, in the charge-sheet complete deviation of the aforesaid decision is evident . It is apparent from the charge sheet in Column 17 that excepting the narration of the facts of the case no other analysis has been made which can support the allegations for proper assistance to the learned Magistrate to ascertain whether such allegation is true or false. Be that as it may, absence of any such material available to attract Section 308, this Court do no find answer this proceed should continue under the said Section. That apart, no specific overt act can be found against the petitioner no.1 and against the opposite party no.2 and there is existing severe inimical relationship between the parties for which the possibility of false allegation cannot be ruled out. 15. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised in order to secure the end of justice or where it is found apparent that allowing the proceeding to be continued would be nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and also waste of precious judicial hour. In the instant case, the allegations levelled by the opposite party no. 2 are directed against all the petitioners and include an allegation of outraging the modesty of a woman. Apparently, an injury report is available in the Case Diary and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the sister of opposite party no.2 and statement of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C also form part of the materials collected during investigation .On a prima facie consideration of such materials certain allegations appear to be made out against the petitioner no. 2 & 3. However, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned no iota of materials to be collected against her in support of the allegations. 16. In the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. VS Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 the guidelines were framed where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction which are as follows; “(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institusztion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 17. It is significant to note that upon completion of investigation the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against all the petitioners for the offences alleged, including the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. In this regard it would be necessary to revisit Section 308 IPC which reads as follows:- “Section 308: Attempt to commit culpable homicide .- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 18. Therefore it is to be shown that such intention or knowledge was in existence and under such circumstances the petitioners by their act can cause death would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murders which are necessary constitute an offence under Section 308 but from the charge-sheet no such evidence can be found to have been collected. 19. Therefore upon conspectus of all this Court is of the view that no ingredients are there for which the charge under section 308IPC should be allowed to continue against any of the petitioners. 20. In addition prima facie on perusal of the entire materials collected during investigation as well as the contents of the written complaint, it is evident that no such ingredients or any iota of evidence are available against the petitioner no.1 to attract any of the offences as alleged who is a lady aged about 49-50 years. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if the proceeding is allowed to be continued against her, it would be an abuse of the process of law. In that case, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed against the petitioner no.1.So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as certain incriminating materials are found which includes statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C by the victim this court is not empowered to determine the veracity of the same by holding mini trial and hence the proceeding should continue in accordance with law. 22. Therefore in view of the above discussion this CRR 3179 of 2025 is allowed in part. 23. The entire proceeding being in connection with Ghatal Police Station Case No.96 of 2022 under Sections 341/323/325/379/308/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code Pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate stands quashed qua the petitioner no 1. 24. The petitioners are exonerated from the charge under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. However the further proceeding of Ghatal P.S. Case no.96 of 2022 as stated above is allowed to be continued against the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in respect of the other penal sections in accordance with law. 25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities. 26. All other connected application, if any, hereby stand disposed of. 27. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)